R.I.P. Charlie Hebdo

[The Ween]

Careful........I hear Snoop's engines.

 

[Rambler]

Yea, I'm done. no sense in arguing with anyone over this.

 

[YankeesFanboy]

Careful........I hear Snoop's engines.

Cue "Ride of the Valkyries."

 

[Lejuan]

It's behind a paywall, but if anyone feels like rooting out Ayaan Hirsi Ali's article in the latest Wall Street Journal, she provides - in my opinion - an excellent account as to why exactly media outlets should be reprinting the cartoons.

Also have read that a German media outlet's offices were firebombed after their paper republished them.

The press is on the front lines now.

 

[YankeesFanboy]

Charlie Hebdo terror attack: Tough decisions for news outlets - Jan. 7, 2015

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Cue "Ride of the Valkyries."

 

[Lejuan]

Charlie Hebdo terror attack: Tough decisions for news outlets - Jan. 7, 2015

I am disappointed that so many media outlets are choosing not to publish the cartoons. I understand that they have a duty of care to their employees - but being in the media has always come with its risks. These same proprietors who claim a duty of care are happy to print the stories of journalists who every day risk their lives in war zones and other hazardous hotspots - but are not happy to print these cartoons?

What happens when the savages decide that reporting of any nature is sufficient provocation to launch their murderous assaults? Do we close down the newspapers and broadcast stations altogether, claiming 'duty of care'?

Why is publication of a cartoon offensive to Islam deemed 'provocation' and warranting 'sensitivity', while a cartoon offensive to a different religious group is fair game? The only difference is that Islamic extremists are bullies of the highest order. And here we are in the West, acquiescing to the demands of the bullies.

What a sad day for the memories of the slain when so many media outlets in the so-called free-world are determined to allow savages to dictate the reach of the fundamental democratic ideal of a free and independent press. Stephane Carbonnier died on his feet, while many of his media peers have chosen to live on their knees.

 

[devilof76]

If enemy combatants are making the press the front line, the governments to whom those journalists pledge alleigance should be protecting them.

 

[Invictus Sol]

I am disappointed that so many media outlets are choosing not to publish the cartoons. I understand that they have a duty of care to their employees - but being in the media has always come with its risks. These same proprietors who claim a duty of care are happy to print the stories of journalists who every day risk their lives in war zones and other hazardous hotspots - but are not happy to print these cartoons?

What happens when the savages decide that reporting of any nature is sufficient provocation to launch their murderous assaults? Do we close down the newspapers and broadcast stations altogether, claiming 'duty of care'?

Why is publication of a cartoon offensive to Islam deemed 'provocation' and warranting 'sensitivity', while a cartoon offensive to a different religious group is fair game? The only difference is that Islamic extremists are bullies of the highest order. And here we are in the West, acquiescing to the demands of the bullies.

What a sad day for the memories of the slain when so many media outlets in the so-called free-world are determined to allow savages to dictate the reach of the fundamental democratic ideal of a free and independent press. Stephane Carbonnier died on his feet, while many of his media peers have chosen to live on their knees.

Can't say I agree. To me it's the same as CNN say having a full video of jihadists cutting off a reporter's head or the like. I have no need to see it and if I want to, it's readily available through other channels. Not that I'm against them publishing or couldn't stomach the cartoons but why risk the violent death of your employees for stuff that is already out there. It's easy for intellectuals out of harm's way to pooh-pooh it but if it was your family and friends at risk, it might seem less "cowardly".

 

[Lejuan]

If enemy combatants are making the press the front line, the governments to whom those journalists pledge alleigance should be protecting them.

Can't say I agree. To me it's the same as CNN say having a full video of jihadists cutting off a reporter's head or the like. I have no need to see it and if I want to, it's readily available through other channels. Not that I'm against them publishing or couldn't stomach the cartoons but why risk the violent death of your employees for stuff that is already out there. It's easy for intellectuals out of harm's way to pooh-pooh it but if it was your family and friends at risk, it might seem less "cowardly".

But it is absolutely not the same. The showing of such a video advances the enemy's cause. Withholding publication of a central plank of a rolling news story and significant historical event also advances the enemy's cause. Whether that material is freely available from other outlets is moot in a discussion about the free press. Is it not hypocrisy to feel ok about the risks taken by those who protect our liberties at the pointy end of armed conflict, and yet give those manning a different front a pass? How do we judge a soldier who desserts their post? Should we not judge a media outlet in the same way? How do we judge any of those among us whose job involves hazards that they dare not confront?

It is not at all easy for me as an intellectual to pooh-pooh the stance of the non-publishing media outlets. Democracy is not easy. The alternative is to ask what liberties one is prepared to sacrifice for a little safety. What is the point of electing our leaders when we allow a few savages to dictate the way we conduct our democratic affairs?

 

[devilof76]

Lejuan owns this thread.

 

[Invictus Sol]

But it is absolutely not the same. The showing of such a video advances the enemy's cause. Withholding publication of a central plank of a rolling news story and significant historical event also advances the enemy's cause.

But shouldn't a "free press" show both sides and not shrink at all from the reality of the situation? If they're going to publish one, they should publish the other and not think whether it advances the "enemies" goals (which would smack of state media).

How do we judge a soldier who desserts their post? Should we not judge a media outlet in the same way? How do we judge any of those among us whose job involves hazards that they dare not confront?

To me this is different than say a fireman afraid to go into a burning house or a paramedic that can't handle the sight of blood. If I were their boss, I wouldn't want to invite the death of my employees. Say the NYT sends a few reporters out on a particular Mafia story and all three end-up in barrels, should they send a fourth (and I mean here in any kind of realistic world)?

It is not at all easy for me as an intellectual to pooh-pooh the stance of the non-publishing media outlets. Democracy is not easy. The alternative is to ask what liberties one is prepared to sacrifice for a little safety. What is the point of electing our leaders when we allow a few savages to dictate the way we conduct our democratic affairs?

We're already sacrificing liberty for safety (have you seen the bills passing in the States, FFS?) -- especially in the Western democracies. Why's this particular inconsistency so important?

BTW, not really arguing anymore, I think you have the right of it, logically. I just think there is a TON of inconsistency in the media in regards to democracy (honestly I'd say we're all in an oligarchy of one sort or another anyway), so why's this one more important than all the others. I guess the only difference here (for me) is this one time I agree with the state, and am fine with state power being brought to bear on a relatively small group.

 

[devilof76]

This particular inconsistency is more fundamental than the rest. Speech is the last line. You cross that one and you may as well fold. There's a reason why the Second Amendment defends private firearm possession. That reason is the First.

 

[devilof76]

There is also the desires of the enemy to consider. If they want beheadings broadcast to instill fear, they can go **** themselves.

If they want cartoons suppressed because they're offended, they can go **** themselves.

Basically, the jihadists can go **** themselves. How's that for consistency?

 

[Invictus Sol]

Haha, yep, I like that reasoning just fine.

 

[devilof76]

Nous sommes les infidels.

 

[The Ween]

I heard that ISIS hacked the Aussie Military twitter and youtube accounts. Is that true?

 

[hoodonit00]

I heard that ISIS hacked the Aussie Military twitter and youtube accounts. Is that true?

I haven't heard that. This is what I heard.ISIS “Cyber Caliphate” Hacks U.S. Military Command Accounts | TechCrunch

 

[The Ween]

I haven't heard that. This is what I heard.ISIS “Cyber Caliphate” Hacks U.S. Military Command Accounts | TechCrunch

The person who posted on my Facebook is Australian. I just assumed she mean them. Cyber security in the US stinks!

 

[Lejuan]

Lejuan owns this thread.

It has taken me a bit of effort to keep my posts about free speech - there's a fair bit that I've self-censored as per board rules. Je ne suis pas Charlie after all

But shouldn't a "free press" show both sides and not shrink at all from the reality of the situation? If they're going to publish one, they should publish the other and not think whether it advances the "enemies" goals (which would smack of state media).



To me this is different than say a fireman afraid to go into a burning house or a paramedic that can't handle the sight of blood. If I were their boss, I wouldn't want to invite the death of my employees. Say the NYT sends a few reporters out on a particular Mafia story and all three end-up in barrels, should they send a fourth (and I mean here in any kind of realistic world)?



We're already sacrificing liberty for safety (have you seen the bills passing in the States, FFS?) -- especially in the Western democracies. Why's this particular inconsistency so important?

BTW, not really arguing anymore, I think you have the right of it, logically. I just think there is a TON of inconsistency in the media in regards to democracy (honestly I'd say we're all in an oligarchy of one sort or another anyway), so why's this one more important than all the others. I guess the only difference here (for me) is this one time I agree with the state, and am fine with state power being brought to bear on a relatively small group.

There are nuances everywhere, I do understand that Devil said it succinctly - speech is the last line. We might be 'controlled' in all sorts of ways, but however we might behave, our speech is our own. Control the way a society speaks to itself, and controlling the way it thinks isn't far off.